The difference in our build up play over the last couple of weeks.

Anyone noticed how our build up play is starting to look a lot better, and more like what it was towards the end of the last season?

The main reasons were, IMO -

1. Demba Ba.

We were so focused on pleasing him, we just knocked balls up all game and tried to give him what he wanted and allowed him to be greedy. This meant we had to be very direct and we ended up sacrificing good build up play for a boring formation feeding Ba chances. Now we have a striker that doesn't look as threatening, but a team with individuals that all work hard and work for each other.

2. We lacked players that can run with the ball with pace.

The addition of Gouffran and Sissoko has been critical and fantastic. Two players that can make good runs off the ball with pace. Only HBA could really do that in midfield. We look now like a side that can pass and move with great effectiveness.

I'm glad Demba left. The only slightly disappointing thing recently has been Cisse squandering a few chances, but he's played a big part in our build up play, and we should give him more time. He had the spotlight taken away from him, and he's not used to this.

 

And we haven't had Willo the Hoof.

 

Really? The Demba thing again? Even though subsequent matches proved this to be flaming beef burgers (or horse ****e, as it's commonly known)?

The introduction of the new players has made Pardew change his style, after Ba left but before Sissoko et al had arrived, we were still hoofing it, only to Papiss instead... and Papiss was shocking at it. Ba was obviously leaving for a few weeks, yet the tactics didn't change, strange that ... Basically, I can't believe this is still being bandied about as a tangible solution.

Anyway, I think we had the capacity to play like this before the new arrivals, but Pardew had little faith in Willo, or Willo had little faith in himself... I think Ba would have loved to have played with this style, plenty of through balls and craft, instead of lumped up crap. I mean, why did he join Chelsea if he loves it being hoofed to him so much? Just ridiculous.

 

To add to your list Tash:

3. We don't have Willo the hoof

4. Debuchy can get involved with the play in a way that Simmo never could

5. Jonas has moved out of the midfield and further forward, so he's no longer passing the ball into touch every 10 seconds

6. Sissoko is a beast

Have I missed anything else?

 

Demba Ba had the ability to be part of a good team and work as a team mate, but towards the end he was only interested in a move away, and got greedy. Him leaving was good for us.

Our style has changed since he left, if not hugely, then enough due to the fact that everyone is working together, not just everyone working to give Ba chances.

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No we were still shocking, and some of the more horrific games this season performance-wise were in the period after Ba but before the new signings... Were you recovering from a night-out with Danny-Simpson during those games?!

Demba scored goals at the league's best strike-rate, in a team that produced f-all going forwards for him. If he'd have stayed we'd be even better!

If you happen to be doing well at fantasy football recently, you'll realise how many points Sissoko has acquired. Before he came, bar Anita for a cheeky 2 points per gameweek at 4.3 mill, our midfield was a no-go area for point accumulation.

If you really think a manager would play hoofball to make a striker stay, continue to play hoofball when he was certainly leaving, and continue to play hoofball after he left, regardless of other personnel, statistical and tactical considerations, you crazy girlllllllllll

 

The impact of The Gouf should not be underestimated as well. He is a fast, and to make matters better, he makes such intelligent runs and dummies and plays so well overall. I've hardly seen him make a bad decision....well apart from that 35 yard shot he took of course.

He's what Obertan imagined he was going to be, and with an end product to top it off!

 

Demba Ba scored goals even when we were ****, but we were still losing games and dropping points! We don't have the same threat of Ba up front but now we look more threatening as a team.

We played a direct style, most of the time hoofball, and our team was set up to feed Ba or just give the ball to Ben Arfa and hope he can produce magic. We didn't play a good style, we just hoped Ba or Ben Arfa could win games for us, and sometimes they did.

But now we've gotten rid of Ba, we look like more of a unit, and we play a sexual style of play, and I'm sure Ben Arfa can fit into this except we wont have to rely upon him to produce magic and win all our games.

That's what Pardew's plan was. He thought "We have Ben Arfa, Ba and Cisse, so all we need to do is hoof it long, give it to them and they'll shoot and score". It was obvious just watching us that this was the case, and to some extent I understand why Pardew would do this. If it worked, we wouldn't need to play nice football, but just get it to our best players and let them do their work.

Demba Ba could have worked in our new style, but the fact that he turned down a new contract and started playing more for himself shows that he was always just looking for a move away. The Demba Ba of last season would have been amazing for us now, but he wasn't the same Demba.

If you have a fantastic striker that scores goals, but at the same time you are dropping points, then that striker leaving is crucial. The addition of new players played a part, but we'd still be playing the same way if Demba Ba was still here.

 

The first half of your post is alright, but what do you mean playing more for himself? Where's the evidence for this? If Pardew felt this, he would have dropped him. He left Ben Arfa out of the side for over half a season because he was too accustomed to "playing for himself", for crying out loud, so you're twisting your logic here Tash. What sort of weakass manager do you think Pardew is? Hell, if you think about his stubborn character for a second, you'll realise that your conclusion doesn't add up at all.

We were dropping points because the defence was shocking. We're still leaking goals now to be fair, and it's still costing us points. That second goal Bale scored, and the way Mata sauntered into the box, and the way we were crippled against Villa second half, all are obvious indications as to why we've been losing points this season. A striker scoring does not cost us points.

Ask AB, he went to Brighton away and other games in that period. We all saw us lose to Reading et al. The defence was a problem, the midfield's lack of fight was a problem, Papiss being woefully off-form was/is a problem... Demba was categorically not the problem.

 

No, no, no no no no no !!!!!

We didn't play hoofball to keep Demba happy at all.

We played hoofball because Williamson and Simpson and to a lesser extent Krul are not comfortable on the ball. Opposition teams knew this and chased Colo and Santo who are comfortable tp pass the ball to Williamson and Simpson who would then launch the ball or pass back to Krul to launch it.

Hoofball tactics were all down to those players and not Ba. Also Ba was more comfortable with the ball played to feet and so I would not understand why he would want the ball launched up to him.

As evidence of the above we have only just changed style when Willo and Simmo have been replaced.

 

Ba didn't work hard like he did last season unless he scored. He would just stay up the pitch, and when he got the ball he'd try and score himself almost every time instead of trying to work with others. He'd shoot from outside the box and miss every time, he didn't show the same work ethic he showed last season until he had scored once or twice in a game.

The times I saw him track back where after he got himself on the score sheet. I'm not saying he didn't give a ****, but his main goal every time was to try and get himself on the score sheet and show himself off, and then afterwards came the team work.

We did drop points at times due to **** defending, but we also dropped points due to the fact that we were just putting **** balls into the box or knocking it long. Our attack lacked a sting and it showed against good defences when we could only score one vs QPR, one vs Swansea and none vs West Ham.

Here's a fact - Did anyone watch the Europa games? I know the quality of the sides weren't amazing, but the Europa games we played without Ba were some of our best technical performances. We played with Cisse and two wingers, and some eager youngsters. We played good, passing, technical football and we passed through our opponents working as a team.

No one can deny most of our good performances at the early stages of the season were in Europe, and it wasn't just down to the lack of quality in the opponents side. We had 5 midfielders and one striker (Cisse) and we played very well.

Then we went back to the PL and played direct to Ba again and looked like ****. The only assist Demba Ba got was from a shot he took that De Gea parried to Perch.

 

As the striker, in a team that's consistently playing long ball, why would you want him chasing back in defence??? You want long balls pumped at Papiss do you? Is that... the key...?

You have severe selective memory when it comes to FACTS Tash... We played a couple of good games in the group stages, but the rest formed very poor games against very poor opposition. Maritimo at home and away was a bloody insult to my eyes!!! Sammy looked like a world-beater in a couple of the games we did well in, so how come you aren't using the same defunct reasoning to champion his premier league selection? Maybe he's... the key...

To me it's startling you've rushed to blame Ba, who as mentioned previously left to join Chelsea who do not play long-ball (even though he apparently wants this and demands it, and Pardew is so weak he'll cave to player demands), when the causes are infinitely more obvious. New players have come in, our severe injury crisis is coming to an end, weaker players with poorer ball skills have been dropped, and our midfield is no longer unproductive.

This Ba stuff is mythical bullshit which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as far as I can see.

 

Don't make declarative statements about people during debates/discussions, because then it becomes personal and it should never become personal on a forum like this.

I don't BLAME Ba himself for everything, I'm just saying his presence in the team wasn't the best thing. Please stop using the term "hoofball". My point is that we played balls direct to feed Ba chances. Our plan was to give it to Ba and hope he scores. It's understandable that you'd do that when you have a top quality striker on form, but Ba should have been one player of an 11 man unit, instead it was a team of 10 men that worked to give the ball to Ba.

When we had Ba we just whacked hopeless balls up the pitch and into the box, and our main goal was to feed Ba. Now we look more like a unit and we link up well together.

Ba was a great player, but he didn't want to stay and it did effect his performances and also, more importantly, our performances, due to the style we were playing. He didn't play like the same player that joined us, he played to look impressive and was extremely greedy. A strikers job is to score goals, yes, but that doesn't give him the right to be greedy, and towards the end of his time here, he was greedy, but we looked passed this because he scored goals, but people didn't look at the bigger picture. This approach to games only worked in certain games, but it hurt us in the rest,.

One striker scoring a **** load of goals doesn't mean your time are doing good, even if it sometimes leads to results. We were at the bottom end of the table, yes it was due to injuries, yes it was due to poor defending, but we had the likes of Ben Arfa and Ba available at times and we still looked unthreatening. We dropped points in games we should have won, and it took moments of brilliance to get us the few results that we got.

Our attack was also the problem, and I blame tactics, and the fact that the club obviously tried to everything to try and convince Ba to stay, but it wasn't enough, and it has played a part in why we slid down the table.

Again, I'm not saying Demba Ba was a big reason, I'm saying, more specifically, the situation with Demba played a big part. I'm not saying Demba was a twat and his greed lead to our demise, I'm saying his presence and the clubs desire to keep him and how it effected our tactics all played a part.

There were many reasons, and I'm sorry that I didn't go into more detail in my thread.

 

Thought we were going to have Colo and Saylor the Hoof but confidence is coming back and the lads are passng the ball better.

 

That was an obvious nod towards the genuine fact you'd used selective memory in the debate, not some form of personal slight. Notice I didn't use the words "your mamma...", my typical insult calling card. Me calling you "crazy girlllllllll" previously you can take however you want though

Ba had the best shots/goals ratio in the league for a long time this season, Papiss had one of the worst. It makes sense to me that Ba shoots and Cisse passes it to Ba, because statistically it was more likely we'd score goals that way, and that's how it transpired anyway. The tactics of hoofball didn't play to Ba's strengths, nor our midfield's (they were all tiny), it was just horrible. But it was Pardew's default during the injury crisis.

Those times where Ba had long-shots, do you happen to notice who he had to pass to? Invariably he had no options. Long-shots aren't even a problem, test the keeper and all that. Cabaye, Tiote and Santon have probably taken way more than Ba did, and only Cabaye has scored from it. Getting the midfield up and into attacking positions is more important, giving the lone striker more options. Ba actually played target man and laid it off exceptionally well.

Still, you've called Demba's play your primary reason for the turn around, and it's blatantly not true. I think his transfer fee, however, might be a useful explanation for a turnaround. Look at what we've got for that money... Brilliant purchases who have strengthened the team enormously.

 

Ba was effective, but him being in the team wasn't doing it good. This is the point that you seem to be missing quite a lot.

Hypothetical sitaution -

If Messi was scoring 80 goals a season, but Barca were sliding down the table because they were less effective as a team by trying to feed Messi, the best thing that could happen for the team would be to get rid of Messi. Again, this is a hypothetical situation, don't take it seriously, but you get my point.

Ba was effective, but the team was suffering because of how we were playing with him. And the whole thing about him shooting because he had no other options is wrong. Sometimes it happened, but a lot of the time there would be players making runs or in better positons and he'd just shoot himself.

I never said Ba was the primary reason for our downfall. I made a list, that was meant to be bigger but I submitted my article too early, and Ba just happened to be one of many. It wasn't in a particular order. As I've said in other comments, Demba Ba himself isn't massively to blame, it was also the way we used him, and also how we were set up to feed him chances.

Without him we are a side that works for each other, and we can score from anywhere. I can't see anyone scoring a huge percentage of our goals, and we look like a much more threatening team.

Yes there are other factors involved, but the situation with Ba had a big effect. I haven't used selective memory in the debate. I believe the way most people look at this whole thing is wrong. Just because you have a striker that's scoring goals, doesn't mean that having him in the team is the best thing.

Would you rather have a team with a striker that scores a lot, and finish 15th, or a team where you have no one that scores a huge amount, and finish 8th?

We don't have an individual that consistently going to score goals anymore, but we have a team that is effective and works together. Everyone feeds each other and works hard. When Ba was here everyone basically just giving it to him, and hoping he'd score.

Last season Ba worked hard on the wing and everyone worked well together and for each other, and we were the best we'd been in ages. Ba was hinting at a move away, the club **** itself and Pardew thought "either I play him in the main strikers role, or he's ****ing off".

Summary - We played to suit certain players, not to get the best out of the team. Pardew was hoping that quality from individuals would work and get us results, and we wouldn't have to play well, but it didn't work. Ba was scoring, but the team wasn't picking up enough results.

Now we don't have the threat of Ba, but we have a better and more efficient team. Ba could have worked in this if his head was in it for the right reasons, and I'm not saying he was entirely selfish, but his main motive was to impressive other clubs and to get a move away. Yes sometimes he shot because there was no other option, but he was greedy quite a lot. A striker has the right to be greedy, but only to an extent. His work rate was effected.

 

Love the Messi analogy If we had Messi, you'd be advocating they pass it to him every time and you know it...

The hypothetical stuff about us being higher up the league without Ba is nonsense... Would we have won the league if we didn't have him last season, then? Oh wait, no, because he was apparently a different person entirely back then... It's just not credible. With the injury crisis we had, playing Papiss upfront would not have created sexy football, or had us any better off. The stats show that.

To sum up, you're now essentially saying if we didn't have good players, Pardew wouldn't think it was a good idea to give them the ball at the expense of others who aren't as good, and thus we'd win more...

The tactics were horrible earlier this season, Demba did not demand we played like this, he looked as frustrated as any other player. If he was that selfish as some have claimed, he wouldn't have played, and nor would his team-mates have celebrated his goals with him. I think, when the season is done and dusted, people will reflect on the fact he was actually one of our saviours this year. If Chelsea offered him back to us in a years time, I'd certainly take him, provided we haven't signed somebody better.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. All I'm saying is that despite how good one player is, the best 11 players doesn't = the most effective team.

I'm not choosing to ignore certain facts like you say, I look at things in complex ways, and I would have still liked to have Ba here, but he wasn't in it for the team anymore, and I think we're better now we don't have one super player up front that we feed the ball to all the time. Everyone works together and creates chances for each other.

When Ba was here, we created chances for him, we didn't often create chances for other players, and it was very easy to predict we'd give the ball to Ba and he'd shoot.

Ba could work in this team, but his frame of mind wasn't what we needed. He wasn't interested in staying, only to get away from the side, and that effects your performances, and Ba was playing first for himself, then for the team.

I'm not saying Ba himself was entirely the problem, just the way he was playing and his approach to his games, and the way we just accepted that and fed him the ball, instead of saying "sorry, but you play where we tell you to play".

There's no way that Pardew would sacrifice that brilliant 4-3-3 formation we had last season that had us all working together effectively, and switch it to a **** 4-4-2 for tactical reasons, because we're significantly worse in this formation.

Our new tactics/formations were made to suit our strikers. We didn't want to drop Cisse back since he was scoring a lot last season, but we were worried about Demba Ba and how he wasn't happy on the wing, which was understandable.

In a main strikers role, Ba scores more, but the team isn't as effective. How is this an irrational theory? I'm not saying it's 100% right, but it has a lot of truth behind it. The team is better when everyone is working for the team in a 4-3-3, we play worse in a 4-4-2, but Ba scores more.

Pardew caved in and hoped that a 4-4-2 would work simply because we have two good strikers up top, but we played it very poorly. We should have stuck with our 4-3-3 and kept Ba on the wing. He scored less but the team benefited. If a player doesn't like his role, then that's tough. Everyone else has grafted for the team and played in positions they might not like 100%, so why should that be different for Ba?

 

For me it falls on the fact we aren't comparing oranges with oranges. We played horrible games after Ba left, so his role, his motivation (which you're speculating on) and his ability, wasn't really the problem.

If we'd had Sissoko and Gouffran making intelligent runs and passes, the team would (and does now) look entirely different. I think Pardew could and should have encouraged better team-play, but since he's been here that has not happened until the last 3 games (noticeably the hints of it we had before were in games in which Demba Ba actually featured, like Man Utd away). We haven't seen flowing games, even when we ended up 5th we had put in more turgid performances than otherwise, just our long ball had been decidedly more effective... And Papiss was scoring every-time he touched it. Obviously it was less effective this season, but that doesn't fall on Demba for being incredibly prolific within the system. Alan either had little faith in our back-ups, little faith in our players to play a different brand, little faith in himself with regards playing better football, or our players had such little faith in themselves that they couldn't keep the ball on the deck.

If anything, I think if Pardew had tried to play the right way since the start of the season, Demba would have been more inclined to stay. I believe he'd have been brilliant with these players around him playing this style.

 

Its down to new personnel but more than anything confidence from players and a manager having options. A manager without options becomes very easy to predict. Players without confidence begin looking not to make mistakes. Sometimes in football you have to take the bull by the horns to get what you want. If you have no confidence you won't do it.

Krul is playing the ball shorter for instance. Previously he was lumping it and with his poor kicking he looked a bit daft. Numerous times Pardew was screaming at him and throwing his arms up in disappointment. As a manager you get frustrated and think "its simple, why isn't he doing what we talked about?" but the reality for the player is a short circuit of the brain. Confidence helps players to stop worrying about a mistake will bring, and thinking more positively. This in turn leads players to relax and do what they are good at and remember the game plan etc. Your brain is just less cluttered and clearer thinking ensues.

Managers having options takes players out of the comfort zone too, they have to perform. For some this is not what they want, but for the majority its what has motivated them their whole life, hence they are professional sportsmen/sportswomen. And finally its just a fact that having new players when you are struggling gives players a lift. And having top quality new players is even better and makes players think "yeah you know what, we are looking good". Just pure and simple feel good factor.